I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go as far as supporting mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even non-judgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity--not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately 'pro-choice.'Hopefully this is unnecessary, but I will now quote the Papist's disclaimer that "the foregoing statement is not intended to be taken at face value, but as a parody and reductio ad absurdum refutation of the fallacious reasoning employed pervasively by proponents of a 'pro-choice' position favoring 'abortion rights.'"
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Why Robert P. George is "moderately pro-choice"
It's the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, and close on 50 million unborn children have been aborted in this country since then, so here's Robert P. George's explanation of his stance. I've seen this brilliant paragraph before but it was the Pertinacious Papist who reminded me of it today: